I think let's stick to groups because everyone is used to robots counting as one unit. That way, it is easier to track how many units you have, which will be considerably harder to do if each robot was individual.

By the way, fantastic work you do there. Can't wait to see something playable.

Well what about moving to a slightly more modern RTS control setup? Like control groups, seeing atleast all the unit types you have selected at once. Force firing. Moving with waypoints. Better mini map control. etc

Great work again by the way. I think units should be kept in groups but it should be possible to use the cursor to make a box and select multiple groups. Modernize it a bit but keep the core game the same IMO.
Any ETA on a playable demo or beta by the way?

Well the units are slow going. I will guess about a unit a day during the weekdays.. So 4 more vehicles. And then the robots, I can not really estimate the robots because on one side they share 90% of their graphics but I haven't completed the thought on how i'm doing the grouping. I forgot about grouping in my initial design lol.

After the map editor is done then I have to finish the TCP / IP base code, then start building the game. I dunno I guess 2 weeks is the absolute earliest you could be clicking units and telling them to go some where. Probably more like 3 or 4 weeks. But I will get you a windows compile of the map editor as soon as it is done so you can mess around with it.

lil' T wrote:I think let's stick to groups because everyone is used to robots counting as one unit. That way, it is easier to track how many units you have, which will be considerably harder to do if each robot was individual.

By the way, fantastic work you do there. Can't wait to see something playable.

FreakNigh wrote:Well what about moving to a slightly more modern RTS control setup? Like control groups, seeing atleast all the unit types you have selected at once. Force firing. Moving with waypoints. Better mini map control. etc

I think robots should definitely be grouped, as it adds to the tactical aspect of the game - which territories to capture first, which later etc. If you had like 4 lasers and 3 snipers (robots) in the beginning and you could send them out individually, you could take any territory around you with them without thinking much. But when they are in two squads, you need to actually think for a bit. Also you could work on the "exploit" of breaking up a squad by letting the robots enter a stationary gun and taking them out (I used that on the 1v1 desert map to create two separate toughs for example =P).

Control groups as in groups of groups are definitely something Z needs, as any other RTS has them as well. Take different robot movement speed into consideration too (will they move "fastest arrives first" or with the tempo of the slowest unit in the group?)

Ya moving in formation is very important when approaching a fight... but on the flip side if your grabbing a flag safely you don't want to wait for the slowest. So how would you quickly and easily flip modes?

FreakNigh wrote:Should I make it so robots still belong to groups, or should I make it so you get 3 or 4 individual robots? of course the unit cap would be modified.

No need to break the group (IMHO).
Individual units (robots) do not represent any value. You lose control - it is impossible to control each robot. The game is very dynamic.
An attempt to control each robot will turn the game into a nightmare (IMHO).

They probably need to remain in groups just for the capture the flag aspect of the game, breaking the group changes this part of the game. However player vs player its still at least fair, but it would be annoying as heck against a bot who quickly managed every individual robot to steal all your flags every single time you didn't have a unit sitting on top of it.

FreakNigh wrote:Ya moving in formation is very important when approaching a fight... but on the flip side if your grabbing a flag safely you don't want to wait for the slowest. So how would you quickly and easily flip modes?

You could simply have a UI button plus a keyboard shortcut (smth like "F" or "Ctrl-F") to switch between "moving together" and "moving as fast as possible", similar to for example, Warcraft III. Another feature could be a similarly usable "loose" vs "tight" formation - making the units spread before a big battle to last longer or stick together to move faster along roads for example.

FreakNigh wrote:They probably need to remain in groups just for the capture the flag aspect of the game

This game has no other aspects!

FreakNigh wrote:, breaking the group changes this part of the game. However player vs player its still at least fair, but it would be annoying as heck against a bot who quickly managed every individual robot to steal all your flags every single time you didn't have a unit sitting on top of it.

Strategy consists of search compromise between an attack and protection. Resources (quantity of fighting units, territories and factories of manufacture) define current opportunities of the player. Clear game rules, game balance (the certain opportunities of each type of units), allow the player to plan the actions (a strategic component of game).
As game designer I can make the following observations:
1) Implemented in Z multiplayer mode is one of the worst in history. It never enjoyed the popularity. This will never be claimed. Many reasons exist for this. I have repeatedly informed about the details. For example, if two equally strong players have an equal amount of resources and the same army. Loser the one who begins to attack. The absurd situation for RTS. The reason - there is no change after a set number of units, there is no development, no improvement. Game is "frozen". And so....
The game is designed for single mode - single player.
2) Development gameplay Z fixed the problem. Any modifications are capable to desroy game completely. For example, the possibility of improving the unit looks good -- a new light tank with two machine guns, or with a disposable rocket launcher, or with a high-powered engine, or with thicker armor, etc.
However, in a real game it will only hinders (for dinamic RTS). It unproductively will take away attention and time of the player...

There are many variants of Z-concept in various games (for example, in Warhammer 40000: Dawn of War).. (IMHO) I cannot recollect more cool, than itself Z...
Development of game probably absolutely in other line.
For example - execute some global levels:
a) map of the galaxy
b) map of the planetary system
c) map of the planet
d) - local level - map of a place of battle collision (it that is present in Z)
Any good concept multiplayer game will be available at high levels of the hierarchy (a-b-c).
The battle takes place on the lower level (d) and only with the computer player (according to Z, the map type Z).
intriguing concept - on the upper levels, players build a defensive system, equip the planet bases (build factories, bridges, roads), trade, communicate, conclude alliances. At the lower level attack on enemy base, but battling with a computer... Take only the best possible

What do you think about having it so one of the options buildings have for production is the ability to upgrade? I think this might add to the strategy enough to help make player vs player more of a good game.

But as far as balance goes, that'll be a process we'll just have to iron out when the time comes. It is impossible to get every qwerk and get the bots to behave exactly the same so.

And I have thought about a,b,c but there were two problems I had with it. First I am not a graphics designer and second I do not think I can carry on the spirit of this game with my own graphics, particularly into a and b. But I am trying to write this code so it could easily be attached to something like a,b,c,d hierarchy.

The thing about Z is the impossibility of a stalemate due to an odd number of territories. This means one player will always have an advantage over the other and the balance of power is never exactly equal.